9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ury, Addl. CIT (D/R) ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM:- By this miscellaneous application, the assessee seeks recall of the order of this Tribunal dt. 08/01/2018. The Tribunal had dismissed the case for non-prosecution. 2. There is a delay of 304 days in filing of the miscellaneous application. The ld. D/R submitted that a order cannot be passed beyond the period of 6 (six) months, as specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ex-parte order of the Tribunal dated July 12, 2017 has been filed by the assessee on 25.09.2018 and the same having been filed by the assessee after 237 days from the period of 6 months from the end of the month in which the corresponding order was passed by the Tribunal, there is a delay of 237 days in filing the same in terms of section 254(2) as pointed out by the registry. After conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the applicant to approach the Tribunal with the suitable application for restoration of the appeals and the time period stipulated in section 254(2) of the Act is not applicable. Following this decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of OM Prakash Sangwan, I hold that this application filed by the assessee for recall of the ex-parte order and restoration of its appeal is not barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Om Prakash Sangwan (supra), we hold that the application of the assessee is not barred by limitation. 4. On merits, the assessee has appeared before us and satisfied us that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called for hearing. The Tribunal had not adjudicated this appeal on merits, as per law. Thus, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
